ncloud_ses_change_disk_size

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the operation causes downtime, requires a reboot, or affects cluster performance. With annotations covering the essentials, the description does no harm but also adds minimal value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. While it lacks structured formatting, the brevity is appropriate for a simple tool. Slightly higher for conciseness but could be improved with minimal structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not mention what happens after the operation (e.g., return values, success status, potential downtime). It also does not specify prerequisites (e.g., cluster must be running). The description is too minimal for a mutation tool that changes infrastructure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (storage size with range and increment, cluster instance number). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Change data node disk capacity'), the specific resource ('data node disk capacity'), and the context ('Search Engine Service cluster'). It distinguishes this tool from similar siblings like ncloud_ses_change_node_spec or ncloud_ses_change_node_type by specifying disk capacity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, cluster states, or situations where other tools (e.g., change_node_spec) might be more appropriate. An agent would have to infer usage from the parameter schema alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.